Impacts on the Implementation of Social Policy: Comparative Study in Malaysia and Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged debate exists concerning the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs through micro-credit to thewell-being of the poor. Some studies showed that microcredit have positive impact to the poor people's lives.However, other studies stated that what actually seemed as a remedy is actually just an increase in the businessincome that does not necessarily bring about to a better well-being of the poor. This paper identifies the impactof the implementation of social interventions brought in through micro-credit schemes of poverty alleviationprograms for the welfare being of society in Malaysia and Indonesia. The methodology used was a combinationof the quantitative and qualitative methods aimed to get the maximum results based on Standard Model of SocialDevelopment. Data analysis performed on the respondents indicated four factors leading to the failure of thewelfare of the community. These factors are social networks, community participation, community developmentand employment opportunities. This research suggests that agencies involved in poverty alleviation throughmicro-credit schemes must carry out appropriate efforts towards the empowerment and active participation of therespondents in social and economic investment as stated in the Standard Model of Social Development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".